(From the BBC)
Monday, 5 November 2007
The War on Terror in Afghanistan
Just as a little aside. The A-10's GAU 8/A 'Avenger' gatling gun has to be the most fearsome weapon on the modern battlefield. Listen to the sound of it around 4 minutes into this video clip of Afghan and Dutch soldiers battling the Taliban in Uruzgan. It sounds like some kind of mythical beast. Frightening.
Then again I can't imagine these kinds of engagements are going to like, you know, win the war on terror.
Then again I can't imagine these kinds of engagements are going to like, you know, win the war on terror.
Pakistan Social Indicators
Dawn reports: “Compared with Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka, Pakistan’s school enrolment is lower, adult illiteracy is higher, and infant and child mortality rates are higher,” says an analytical study of the Asian Development Bank.
Rumours
The Rumour in the Karachi Stock Exchange is that a curfew has been imposed in Islamabad and that Musharaf has been forced out by the army High Command.
Don't know if its just a wild rumour (though it has led to a stock market crash in the last few minutes) or if there is any truth behind it. Guess we will soon find out.
Edit: Well the army has issued a statement saying that the rumours of a counter-coup were just that - a rumour and that no such thing has happened. The need for a statement was necessary because the stock market had gone into free fall.
Still, I get the feeling that Mushie's days are numbered. The army High Command forced Ayub Khan out in 69 and got rid of Yahya Khan after the 1971 war. Zia ul Haq's assassination, whatever its motive force was, certainly needed the active complicity of highly placed men in the armed forces. (As one retired general said on a TV discussion recently, the High Command breathed a sigh of relief at Zia's death). Unless Musharaf can turn things around fairly quickly in Pakistan, (and I don't see how he can), the army may well show him the door.
Don't know if its just a wild rumour (though it has led to a stock market crash in the last few minutes) or if there is any truth behind it. Guess we will soon find out.
Edit: Well the army has issued a statement saying that the rumours of a counter-coup were just that - a rumour and that no such thing has happened. The need for a statement was necessary because the stock market had gone into free fall.
Still, I get the feeling that Mushie's days are numbered. The army High Command forced Ayub Khan out in 69 and got rid of Yahya Khan after the 1971 war. Zia ul Haq's assassination, whatever its motive force was, certainly needed the active complicity of highly placed men in the armed forces. (As one retired general said on a TV discussion recently, the High Command breathed a sigh of relief at Zia's death). Unless Musharaf can turn things around fairly quickly in Pakistan, (and I don't see how he can), the army may well show him the door.
A Conversion and a Confirmation
It would seem as if Mr Ali Eteraz, who wrote a fawning apology for Musharaf in his article on the Guardian website, which I criticized here, has already repented.
Meanwhile it seems as if as far back as in 2002, it had become apparent that the much-touted Madressa reform policy of the Musharaf government was heading for failure. This report by the International Crisis Group spells out its shortcomings. It pretty much confirms my own assessment of the Madressah reforms.
Meanwhile it seems as if as far back as in 2002, it had become apparent that the much-touted Madressa reform policy of the Musharaf government was heading for failure. This report by the International Crisis Group spells out its shortcomings. It pretty much confirms my own assessment of the Madressah reforms.
Our Feudal Lords
One thing I constantly hear from various members (or retired members) of the armed forces is the assertion that because of "feudalism", or the "feudal-system", democracy can never work in Pakistan and the army needs to run things in order to improve and uplift the people.
Of course, they conveniently ignore the fact that the army as an institution is the biggest feudal land-owner in Pakistan.
The history behind this is interesting, and one I would love to do more research about. But essentially, it goes back to the times when the Punjab was conquered by the British and brought into the imperial fold. At the time, the need to regularly pacify various parts of British India required the existence of a large standing army. Furthermore, it was judicious British policy to incorporate the armies of newly conquered areas into the British army as soon as possible, to prevent large bands of armed men wandering around without work (something the Americans could have learned from in Iraq, but that's another story).
The problem as was, how does one pay for all of this? Going through the expense and headache of a central treasury that collected taxes and then paid them out to the armies was a large undertaking, and one for which the British lacked the patience, manpower, and frankly, money, to do. It was far cheaper to simply allocate the revenues of various lands (the same lands from where soldiers were for the most part recruited) to the army, making the army, in essence the feudal landlords of those areas and the farmers who worked on them, their tennants. This procedure was extended so that there were certain areas which were to provide provisioning for the army, certain areas to provide cattle and horses for transport, etc. All in all, it was a way to maintain a large standing army on the cheap, while helping to integrate that area more firmly under British authority.
The pay off of the system was visible during the Mutiny (or civil war, call it what you may) in 1857 when the mutinying garrisons came almost exclusively from the eastern provinces in the Awadh and Bengal. The newly recruited Punjabi garrisons stayed loyal to the British and helped turn the tide against the mutineers. After the Mutiny, the British reduced recruitment from the eastern provinces and focused on recruitment from the Punjab and frontier peoples such as Pathans and Gurkhas.
After Independence this "feudal" relationship between the army as landlord and the farmers as tenants remained. However, in recent years the army started feeling that it could obtain better yields and profits by corporatizing farming on its lands, rather than retaining a large number of small tenant farmers.
As one gentleman who is a leading light in a large investment firm and an economic analyst enthusiastically assured me a few years ago, this process of corporatization of farming would be of great benefit to the economy. Of course, one wondered if it would be of great benefit for the thousands of farmers it would dispossess and throw off the land? It is this impulse, and the fight against it, that has led to incidents like this.
In a sense, I guess you could credit the army for trying to end feudalism. But not as it ended through land reform throughout Europe, but by simply translating the relationship between the army landlord and peasant tenant to a purely capitalist relationship, and throwing the farmers off the land.
Of course, they conveniently ignore the fact that the army as an institution is the biggest feudal land-owner in Pakistan.
The history behind this is interesting, and one I would love to do more research about. But essentially, it goes back to the times when the Punjab was conquered by the British and brought into the imperial fold. At the time, the need to regularly pacify various parts of British India required the existence of a large standing army. Furthermore, it was judicious British policy to incorporate the armies of newly conquered areas into the British army as soon as possible, to prevent large bands of armed men wandering around without work (something the Americans could have learned from in Iraq, but that's another story).
The problem as was, how does one pay for all of this? Going through the expense and headache of a central treasury that collected taxes and then paid them out to the armies was a large undertaking, and one for which the British lacked the patience, manpower, and frankly, money, to do. It was far cheaper to simply allocate the revenues of various lands (the same lands from where soldiers were for the most part recruited) to the army, making the army, in essence the feudal landlords of those areas and the farmers who worked on them, their tennants. This procedure was extended so that there were certain areas which were to provide provisioning for the army, certain areas to provide cattle and horses for transport, etc. All in all, it was a way to maintain a large standing army on the cheap, while helping to integrate that area more firmly under British authority.
The pay off of the system was visible during the Mutiny (or civil war, call it what you may) in 1857 when the mutinying garrisons came almost exclusively from the eastern provinces in the Awadh and Bengal. The newly recruited Punjabi garrisons stayed loyal to the British and helped turn the tide against the mutineers. After the Mutiny, the British reduced recruitment from the eastern provinces and focused on recruitment from the Punjab and frontier peoples such as Pathans and Gurkhas.
After Independence this "feudal" relationship between the army as landlord and the farmers as tenants remained. However, in recent years the army started feeling that it could obtain better yields and profits by corporatizing farming on its lands, rather than retaining a large number of small tenant farmers.
As one gentleman who is a leading light in a large investment firm and an economic analyst enthusiastically assured me a few years ago, this process of corporatization of farming would be of great benefit to the economy. Of course, one wondered if it would be of great benefit for the thousands of farmers it would dispossess and throw off the land? It is this impulse, and the fight against it, that has led to incidents like this.
In a sense, I guess you could credit the army for trying to end feudalism. But not as it ended through land reform throughout Europe, but by simply translating the relationship between the army landlord and peasant tenant to a purely capitalist relationship, and throwing the farmers off the land.
Gagging the Media
Here is the complete text of the ordinance on the electronic media. It seems to concern electronic broadcasting only so the print media is safe for now.
(Edit: No, it seems as if I was wrong. Restrictions have been placed on the print media as well. I'll try and find a link to the specific ordinance.)
These provisions are the kickers:
and just to make sure that all bases are covered:
(o) not broadcast anything which is known to be false or baseless or is malafide or for which there exist sufficient reasons to believe that the same may be false, baseless or malafide.”
In other words, anything the government decides it doesn't like can be met with prison terms and massive fines. It is ridiculous in its draconian measures.
I was conversing with a gentleman yesterday who was strongly supportive of the restrictions. Making references to the television media showing the bodies of dead soldiers, showing captured soldiers, and interviewing militants, he spoke at length about the media's sensationalism and voyeurism, and then went on about how in the United States, the media exercises self-censorship by not showing bodies or coffins, or pictures of soldiers who have been captured, and refuse to give any voice to any of the militants they are waging their war of terror upon. Contrasting the Pakistani and US media, he went to say that in Pakistan, the government should impose restrictions because the Pakistani media is not responsible enough to exercise self-censorship.
To this line of argument, my immediate response is: has the American media model served America well? If you are a conspiracy theorist who believes that in the last five or six years, world events have unfolded according to a American master plan of domination - that the civil war in Iraq was planned from the start and that the American government and military are all sitting around patting themselves on the back due to their successful domination of the world etc. then perhaps you might feel that the American media model must be forcibly emulated in Pakistan. To believe this, one suspects, you would either have to be a member of Bush's public relations staff, or a complete buffoon. (The two categories not being necessarily exclusive).
Has the American media served the American people well by exercising self-censorship and allowing itself to be used by the government as a tool? Most assuredly not. It served the interests of a small clique in the ruling class, allowing them to launch a war which has been disastrous for America in terms of wasted lives, a suffering economy and growing anti-Americanism around the world. It may have been financial profitable for Bush and his immediate circle - but they are not, in of themselves, America.
So in Pakistan, a gagged media will serve the interests of a small clique of rulers and their immediate circles. But will it serve the interests of the people? No.
Edit: Some more thoughts, considerations and qualifications on this topic here.
(Edit: No, it seems as if I was wrong. Restrictions have been placed on the print media as well. I'll try and find a link to the specific ordinance.)
These provisions are the kickers:
(k) ensure that no anchor person, moderator or host propagates any opinion or acts in any manner prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan or sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan.
(l) not broadcast any programme inciting violence or hatred or any action prejudicial to maintenance of law and order;
(m) not broadcast anything which defames or brings into ridicule the Head of State, or members of the armed forces, or executive, legislative or judicial organs of the state;
and just to make sure that all bases are covered:
(o) not broadcast anything which is known to be false or baseless or is malafide or for which there exist sufficient reasons to believe that the same may be false, baseless or malafide.”
In other words, anything the government decides it doesn't like can be met with prison terms and massive fines. It is ridiculous in its draconian measures.
I was conversing with a gentleman yesterday who was strongly supportive of the restrictions. Making references to the television media showing the bodies of dead soldiers, showing captured soldiers, and interviewing militants, he spoke at length about the media's sensationalism and voyeurism, and then went on about how in the United States, the media exercises self-censorship by not showing bodies or coffins, or pictures of soldiers who have been captured, and refuse to give any voice to any of the militants they are waging their war of terror upon. Contrasting the Pakistani and US media, he went to say that in Pakistan, the government should impose restrictions because the Pakistani media is not responsible enough to exercise self-censorship.
To this line of argument, my immediate response is: has the American media model served America well? If you are a conspiracy theorist who believes that in the last five or six years, world events have unfolded according to a American master plan of domination - that the civil war in Iraq was planned from the start and that the American government and military are all sitting around patting themselves on the back due to their successful domination of the world etc. then perhaps you might feel that the American media model must be forcibly emulated in Pakistan. To believe this, one suspects, you would either have to be a member of Bush's public relations staff, or a complete buffoon. (The two categories not being necessarily exclusive).
Has the American media served the American people well by exercising self-censorship and allowing itself to be used by the government as a tool? Most assuredly not. It served the interests of a small clique in the ruling class, allowing them to launch a war which has been disastrous for America in terms of wasted lives, a suffering economy and growing anti-Americanism around the world. It may have been financial profitable for Bush and his immediate circle - but they are not, in of themselves, America.
So in Pakistan, a gagged media will serve the interests of a small clique of rulers and their immediate circles. But will it serve the interests of the people? No.
Edit: Some more thoughts, considerations and qualifications on this topic here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
